News

Barnes & Noble opening in downtown Palo Alto

New Hamilton Avenue space for e-reader research and development

Bookstore giant Barnes & Noble is moving into downtown Palo Alto, but shoppers will still need to head to Redwood City because the new space is not for retail.

Instead, the new offices are expected to house the company's electronic book reader, or "Nook," software-development division, according to Palo Alto Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie.

The book seller is renovating 10,000 square feet of office space on the second and third floors of 300 Hamilton Ave., at the corner of Bryant Street. The improvements are projected to cost $835,000, according to city records.

Barnes & Noble has not yet released its expected move-in date.

The Nook became available for pre-order October 2009 and sold out before Dec. 25. Stores began stocking it in February. Barnes & Noble now sells the Wi-Fi model for $149 and the Wi-Fi and 3G model for $199.

According to Gizmodo and other tech blogs, Barnes & Noble plans to release an updated and improved Nook 2 later this year, though Barnes & Noble has not confirmed these reports.

Posted by Too Much Traffic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2010 at 8:14 am

Is there a guarantee of no new net car trips into the city? Housing for employees?
Is the space they are renovating historic? Does the Historic Board, the Architectual Review Board and the Planning Commission get to weigh in? What about an EIR? When does the public get to weigh in on this?
Bottom line---not so fast, Barnes and Nobles--you have to play by Palo Alto rules

Posted by Too Much Traffic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

"Got off it already, Stanford shills. They are not building a new building.:"
That does not matter--even on new additional car trip into palo alto is too many (or so they say). All the other issues need to be addressed as well. If you make demands of one business entity, then you have to make them of all others, otherwise it is hypocritical. I do not think that the new Walgrens building, for example, was subjected to all the demands that are made of Stanford. What about the new building at the Spago's site--they are tearing down trees for that!!!

It's unlikely that Negroponte (who father of the MIT Media Lab, and one of the key players in the design/development of the One-PC-Per-Child project, might be a little off in his timeline, the world of publishing is moving very hard to shift from paper to electronic distribution. There are estimates of as many as 50M iPads being sold a year, within a couple years. Virtually every large electronics manufacturer either has a e-book reader on the market, or will be introducing one within a year.

Large on-line repositories of books now exist (Google and the Internet Archive being the largest two). But it's only a matter of time before organizations like the Library of Congress become the target of digitizing .. and the great literature (and newspapers) of the world will sooner, or later, be on-line.

The publishers understand what is happening. Unfortunately, governments are not obligated to operate like the publishers do. It's OK to waste trillions of taxpayer dollars, just to satisfy one special interest group, or another.

Posted by Thrilled!
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 18, 2010 at 12:43 pm

I for one am thrilled that a new business with good paying jobs is coming to town! Hip hip hooray I say! With a city government facing a budget crisis, vacancies running rampant throughout downtown, and a lingering recession, this should be good news for us. Before every panics, OF COURSE they will have to abide by our building codes and permitting, etc. etc. etc. (the typical lengthy and cumbersome "Palo Alto process") just like everyone else... so with the benefits of a great new business opening that will provide high paying jobs, taxes for the city, and new customers for our local eateries and boutiques...why aren't we celebrating?
And more so, why are we so scared of change? Change is the only constant in life and the only thing that will pull us and the rest of the nation our of the recession. Embrace people!

Posted by Diogenes
a resident of Addison School
on Aug 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm

To To Much Traffic: Are you saying that the traffic issues re the Stanford Hospital Expansion are illegal for PA to pursue? Or that if PA pursues the traffic issues with Stanford that it is legally required to do so with every other employment expansion in town? If you are, you are dead wrong on the law. If you maintain that you are correct, cite your authorities. Major new construction (say $3B worth) requires regulation under State Law and internal renovation of existing office buildings (as described in this news item) does not. Is that too hard for you to understand? What you have said is the continual Stanford strategy of constant whining and griping as a substitute for correct facts and legal analysis. Since you are wrong on the latter, you try to create the impression that you have a point worth considering by constant repetition and feigned indignation. There is nothing more devious or deadening to proper public evaluation that what you do. Stanford should be ashamed. Is it?

Posted by Too Much Traffic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 18, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Diogenes:

My what a rant!!!!
I am saying and it is very clear in my postings, that if traffic is an issue in the city and some people claim that even one new net car trip is too many, then traffic issues need to be consistently dealt with.
I also wonder why internal renovations of office buildings are okay, but people who want to do renovations to their private homes are often put through the ringer in Palo Alto.
And since you have concluded that I am wrong, why bother to even ask all those questions. Talk about devious and deadening. But what does Stanford have to do with it--I am posting as private citizen. But anyway, your derogatory comments regarding Stanford, while forgetting how much money they have offered to the city, tell me what your position is on this matter.

Posted by Diogenes
a resident of Addison School
on Aug 18, 2010 at 3:27 pm

Just as I expected. More indignation, more vagueness, continuing refusal to deal factually or analytically with the issues which you yourself have raised. Once again, large projects are required by State Law to be evaluated and regulated and smaller projects such as interior changes to existing buildings are not. Is it that you do not comprehend or that you do not want to focus on the facts? I have recently made changes in my residence and had no problem with the City. You claim to be only a private citizenI, but you are hiding behind an anonymous posting, and you are repeating word for word the Stanford party line. I am dealing with facts and analysis. The rant is on your side. I repeat: cite your authorities and give us your reasoning. Can you?

Posted by Too Much Traffic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2010 at 6:03 am

Diogenes:

My what a rant.
You complain that I am "hiding behind an anonymous posting"--is Diogenes your family or given name?
I have stated my reasoning. It is all there. It does not fit your scenario--too bad. Get over it--democracy in action.
You claim you are dealing in facts, yet make it sound like Stanford's project is not being dealt with in accordance with the State law. You also forget the unwritten "palo Alto process" which is not law, that comes into play, plus the attempts by the city council to extort money from Stanford in return for permission.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.